27.12.2012 Views

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

After testing, the properties of passive soft tissue structures were investigated by<br />

performing a resection study using a stepwise resection of the passive soft tissue<br />

structures [9].<br />

3.2 Virtual Model Creation<br />

For each tested specimen, a specimen specific computer model was built in<br />

Abaqus/Explicit (Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., Providence, RI, USA). A model<br />

consisted of the 3D geometry of the femur, tibia and fibula bones including the joint<br />

cartilage based on CT and MRI scans (Figure 1A). The patella was not included. Virtual<br />

TKR surgery was performed using the same prostheses type, size and positioning<br />

parameters as performed during experiments (Figure 1B, C).<br />

A<br />

Figure 1: A) 3D geometry of virtual model, B) with implanted femur and tibia component, C) with<br />

meshed implant articulating surfaces and visualized rigid body reference nodes.<br />

The prosthesis component articulating surfaces were meshed using quad dominated<br />

meshes of shell elements with global average element edge length of 1.8 mm for the<br />

femur component and 1.5 mm for the tibia component (insert). Both meshed bodies<br />

were defined to be rigid bodies. A rigid body analysis allows determining relative<br />

kinematics with reduced computational time compared to a deformable analysis.<br />

Contact between the joint surfaces was defined using the penalty based method with a<br />

weight factor. The contact forces are defined as a function of the overclosure<br />

(penetration) of the master (femoral component) into the slave surface. This “bed of<br />

springs” method [10] from the elastic foundation (EF) theory [1,11,12] used the<br />

pressure overclosure (PO) relationship [10]:<br />

pressure<br />

B<br />

1 <br />

E<br />

overclosur<br />

1 <br />

1 2<br />

thickness<br />

Femur bone<br />

Femur component<br />

Tibia component with<br />

insert<br />

Tibia bone<br />

Fibula bone<br />

Equation 1 [10]<br />

e<br />

where E is the Young’s modulus of the insert material and is the Poisson’s ratio. In<br />

order to improve the estimates of a linear relationship a piecewise linear pressure PO<br />

curve was estimated based on a nonlinear stress strain material curve of the insert<br />

material polyethylene (PE) [10].<br />

The insert height was dependent on the implanted type of insert used during the robot<br />

experiments. For each model the insert thickness was used as input parameter for the<br />

PO relationship. In tangential direction, frictional contact was defined using a friction<br />

coefficient as a function of sliding velocity and contact pressure determined<br />

experimentally [13].<br />

To drive the model boundary conditions were applied to the rigid body reference nodes.<br />

Consistent with the experimental protocol, the femur bone reference node of the knee<br />

C<br />

Reference<br />

nodes

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!